https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288453 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Julien Enselme from comment #4) > > You can avoid defining %sum. Just put the summary in the first Summary, and then use %summary in subsequent subpackages. > > I didn't know that. Is there something similar for description? Nope. > > PYTHONPATH is normally unset, so you don't need to preserve the previous one. > > It's more an habit to preserve it, but I agree it is not useful. > > > You probably don't need to use sed to fix the shebang line. Just move > %py2_install below %py3_install. > > Should the binary use python3 by default? It works, I tested it. That's why > I put %py3_install last and corrected the shebang. Oh, OK. Yes, python3 is preferred [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Executables_in_.2Fusr.2Fbin]. > * Sat Dec 5 2015 Julien Enselme <jujens@xxxxxxxxx> - 0.5.4-3 > - Use only one doc package. > - Use %%summary to avoid summary repetition. > - Use %%__python3 macro to fix shebang. > > > SPEC: http://dl.jujens.eu/SPECS/python-CommonMark.spec > SRPM: http://dl.jujens.eu/SRPMS/python-CommonMark-0.5.4-3.fc23.src.rpm - license is OK - license file is present, %license is used - latest version - builds and installs OK - new python template is used - python3 is preferred - requires and provides are OK - no scriptlets present or needed - rpmlint says: no-documentation, no-manual-page-for-binary, spelling-error, python-bytecode-without-source. All false positives or ignorable. You might want to add Suggests: python-CommonMark-doc to the python2- and python3- subpackages. Package is APPROVED. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review